| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
This thread is all about the difference between the two, which I take to be something like
Brain: an independent, self-regulating organ of the body, for storage of data and control of various autonomic actions
Mind: a kind of overriding control mechanism independent of (or in some special part of) the brain with which we can, however imperfectly, make the brain do our bidding.
Well, yes, it's already apparent I'm blathering but never mind. What I will do is post up Medium stories in order of when they were written -- they have no other connection -- and see where they lead, if anywhere. Everyone else is free to comment or go their own way entirely. Including myself if I find my method is not leading anywhere.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
This (I now see) describes the difference between mind and brain, as played out in the public sphere.
--------------
Now Hear This! Mar 8, 2024
In Applied Epistemology we specialise in what might be called ‘systematised folly’. Not people doing dumb things — everyone does that, even Applied Epistemologists — but the same dumb things over and over again. People aren’t dumb (no, honestly) they have to be in the grip of a higher power to carry on doing the same dumb things over and over again.
Applied Epistemologists are trained to identify what these higher powers are and let people know in case they want to stop doing them. Unfortunately people do not regard Applied Epistemologists as a higher power and resist all our blandishments. People quite like being dumb, there’s no arguing about that.
I’ll give you a trivial example of all this because it happened half an hour ago and it’s happened to me multiple number of times in multiple different places recently.
I was listening to an interesting little snippet on the World Service about events in France, 1940. French people were telling us all about it. In French. The BBC had thoughtfully provided an English translation over the top. I could make out the English if I concentrated but it was unbelievably irksome because the French people were speaking too. Not loudly, just enough to clash. I had to give up in the end, the medium was more irksome than the message.
I could tell everything had been finely calibrated at their end. I had to be
* reminded constantly these are French people speaking, presumably for reasons of authenticity and immediacy, it being a personal testament type of programme
* I also had to be able to make out the English at all times too. And this balance was brilliantly achieved!
* Albeit at the expense of the entire purpose of the exercise for me personally, listening to a BBC nugget about France, 1940.
This is all well known. You don’t need an Applied Epistemologist to tell you human ears aren’t really designed to twin-track (I hope to God it isn’t just mine). We’re highly monaural animals who can cope with one complex sound but not two. We have large brains but not large enough to tune out one message, while we listen raptly to the other. (I hope to God it isn’t just my brain.)
So how has this madness arisen? And not just the BBC, it’s becoming standard across the multilingual talkosphere. One reason is that while people who make radio and television programme have ears the same as ours, they tend to be applying them to better apparatuses than ours. (I hope to God it isn’t just mine.) But that part of the problem is at least theoretically soluble.
The part that isn’t is broadcast professionals having brains that are designed — or at any rate trained — to tune out complex messages. “Switch to camera one, anchor, roll news feed, trail out voice-over etc etc.” And they can’t do anything about it. They can’t untrain themselves.
If I say to one of them “Listen to this piece about France, 1940 and tell me what you think” they literally cannot hear the problem. It’s an application of what Applied Epistemologists call the tyranny of knowledge.
Not that the opportunity would arise. An amateur having the cheek to lecture a professional about a technical matter wouldn’t get through the door. The one with the bloke in faux military costume in Portland Place, I mean. But even if I carried out a faux military coup and occupied Broadcasting House to get my message across, it would make no difference. Programme makers answer to a higher power than their mere audience. “Memo from the top floor: in the interests of authenticity and immediacy, it is essential etc etc.”
And who is the higher power the top floor is answering to? Ah, that’s the real source of the problem. Fashion, modish cant, compulsory education, multiculturalism, political correctness, custom and practice, jacks-in-office, Buggins turn, Peter Principle. You know, life. We’ve got no chance until we eradicate that.
Give us the tools and we’ll finish the job!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
Sadly, this archaic version of phpBB doesn't let us link other topics and posts that may be relevant to a new topic. So I shall have to be rather tedious and repeat something mentioned previously (before this topic existed)...
A lot of Neurology "science" is actually founded on surprisingly abstract philosophical concepts, instead of actual science.
You could forgive the general public for continually conflating "brain" and "mind" as the same thing in the same physical place. Neurologists should know better, but most of them cling to the idea that the brain is some kind of mainframe computer, and everything else in the body is a passive recipient of instruction.
The irony may be that this is more a reflection of the psychological state of the academic elite. And how it likes to operate, issuing ideas and orders to a passive public that needs to be instructed.
Given the distribution of neurons around the body, outside of the brain, the neurological circuitry makes more sense as distributed computing, with the brain as a router or switch. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
Some neuroscientists are honest enough to recognise that a lot of what is taught as "fact" in neurology is actually based on a philosophical view of how our mental worlds work.
For example:
"Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience" by Bennett and Hacker (a philosopher and a neuroscientist).
A core concept is the "Mereological Fallacy".
| "Mereology is the logic of part/whole relations. The neuroscientists' mistake of ascribing to the constituent parts of an animal attributes that logically apply only to the whole animal, we shall call 'the mereological fallacy' in neuroscience..... |
| Human beings, but not their brains, can be said to be thoughtful or thoughtless, ... animals, but not their brains, can be said to hear, smell, taste, ..... people but not their brains, can be said to make decisions or be indecisive." | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
What you describe, Borry, is roughly the position I take as, I trust, will emerge as these Medium stories unfold. I'm not sure if this one, next in chronology, bears this out but the one after should.
-----------------
The Psychiatry of Conspiracy Theories May 23, 2023
Paranoia, what part does it play? Very little.
Conspiracy theories are a branch of the entertainment industry. As with, say, horror films paranoia is present but is not what makes them popular. Conspiracy theories must have a ‘grassy knoll’ element but only as a plot device.
But psychiatric practitioners are not in a position to know whether, in fact, a real second gunman was on the grassy knoll, or might reasonably be conjectured to be, so the patient might be exhibiting prudent concern about an actual conspiracy, not clinical paranoia.
| This creates a problem for professional practitioners. If there has to be a grassy knoll element, whether it is a genuine conspiracy or a conspiracy theory, how is one to tell which it is? |
This is critical for an assessment of patients so a test has been devised to assist accurate diagnoses:
(1) Make a list of all current conspiracy theories [latest figure, 1,573]
(2) Tick all the ones that turned out to be true [latest figure, zero]
(3) Tick the ones that may turn out to be true [latest figure, 1,573]
(4) Discuss with patient.
Turning to the wider psychiatric picture, a questionnaire has been prepared:
Question 1: Was the central figure someone with psychiatric problems?
Answer: Unless contra-indicated, Yes.
Question 2: Do those people who believe it was a conspiracy even though a person with psychiatric problems is indicated, have psychiatric problems?
Answer: Yes.
Question 3: Is it a matter for concern that half the people in the world believe in conspiracy theories?
Answer: Yes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Well, it doesn't exactly, but it points to the underlying motor of the process, the pursuit of happiness. Reading this over now, I find it more profound than when I wrote it.
----------------
Are you the happiest person you know? May 28, 2024
I am, but I need to know if this is just a general state of affairs for anyone who is not actually in some obvious condition of externally imposed misery. If we all live out our blameless lives constantly thinking, “Strewth, I’m glad I’m me and not him/ her/ whoever,” as I do, then presumably I’m not really happy, just averagely self-deluded.
But this does not end the matter. Is there any difference between thinking you’re happy and being happy? I may be smug but would I be happier not being smug? These are tricky questions to answer. We all know the difference between happiness and unhappiness, we have all been both at various times in our lives, so we cannot mistake the two. If currently we feel happy, we cannot be deluding ourselves about that, at the very least.
There are objective tests that measure happiness across entire populations. Apparently the Danes are currently the happiest people on the planet but this cuts no mustard for an individual Dane. In fact it might be a tough break being a Dane:
| “I read here in ze paper ve are ze happiest people in ze vorld, so I personally have a mountain to climb. I’m happier than anyone I know, and since everyone I know is a Dane, and they constitute a reasonable cross-section of the Danish population as a whole, I have some claims to being the happiest person in the world (o.n.o.). Jeez, that’s a lot of pressure.” |
It gets harder if you consult people who know you and ask them, “Do you think I’m happier than you are?” You will presumably get the standard response, “No way, sunshine. I wouldn’t be you for all the tea in China.”
“So why do I think I’m happier than you?”
“Pure self-delusion, matey.”
“But surely that would apply to you too?”
“Not necessarily. Look at the situation objectively. I’ve got more money than you for a start, and money buys a lot of happiness.”
“That’s true but since I know this and yet I persist in thinking I’m happier than you — in fact I wouldn’t be you for all the tea in China — how can I be deluding myself?”
“Dunno, but we can’t both be right.”
I am beginning to wonder if we can.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
If you're happy and you know it ...
.. for God's sake don't start clapping your hands.
You will just piss-off the rest of us.
Who are happiest when we are miserable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Are you saying you are not the happiest person you know? Please think carefully about this because it affects the argument.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
No.
I'm one of the most miserable persons I know.
But I'm happy to be like that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
If you're not going to help, you're not going to help.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
This starts getting down to cases. After a fashion.
--------------
You’re not only smart, you can prove it Aug 17, 2024
When A disagrees with B, B does not say
| “A disagrees with me. That might be because A is smarter than me, so I’d better listen carefully in case A is right and I am wrong. That way I can adjust my thinking.” |
Anyone who followed such a strategy would spend their whole life in a chronic state of cognitive confusion. Every time somebody disagreed with you, you would have to go for a lie down and think it all through from first principles. Anyone who followed such a strategy would spend their whole life in a chronic state of cognitive confusion. Every time somebody disagreed with you, you would have to go for a lie down and think it all through from first principles.
The brain does not allow you to rest easy if you suspect you have got something wrong. It uses a series of avoidance procedures to ensure you almost never suspect you have got something wrong. Of which the most important is 'The Taxi Driver Defence'. When a cabbie says something you disagree with you do not listen carefully because, for all you know, he might be smarter than you. You say to yourself
| “A disagrees with me. That means A is not as smart as me.” |
The Taxi Driver Defence might be completely circular but it takes care of all normal social interactions. It is not though sufficient for when you get home and turn on Newsnight. You will be confronted by people saying things you disagree with who are manifestly not taxi drivers. People who manifestly may be smarter than you.
Then you have to fall back on the 'What's Their Angle' defence
| “A disagrees with me. That means A is in the pay of somebody or other, a mouthpiece for some political party or interest group. Or he’s just some rich bloke protecting his ill-gotten gains. Or a fruitcake they’ve dug up from somewhere.” |
That takes care of a gratifyingly large proportion of things you hear from ‘suits’ but it is still not enough to avoid cognitive confusion. What happens if he or she is not so easy to dismiss? They can be clever bastards that way. But you are cleverer, you have the ‘Either Or’ defence
| “A disagrees with me. I quite respect A but on this particular subject A is wrong because, as it happens, I know rather a lot about it.” |
That is gratifying but just to be on the safe side
| “A disagrees with me. I quite respect A but I don’t know enough about this subject to know whether I should agree with him or not. If he turns out to be right I’ll hear about it soon enough. |
So here you are. Totally free from cognitive confusion. Holding the same opinions, generally speaking, you developed when you did suffer from cognitive confusion, during your adolescence.
Of course you have come a long way since then but you can be confident you have made most of the right decisions because everyone you associate with agrees with you pretty much across the board. Since you do not associate with them because they agree with you — they are a right collection of odds and sods — it is hardly likely you would all be wrong together.
| And if you are what can you do about it? |
That normally takes you up to death since over time you constantly either (a) adjust your views along with your social circle or (b) adjust your social circle. But there is one Special Case:
1. There is always the possibility I might change my mind about something at some time in the future.
2. Then I would be A to their B.
3. Obviously they know me well enough not to say that means I am less smart than they are.
4. In fact I will be able to point out that I used to believe what they believed but I have moved on.
5. That would surely show, if anything, I was smarter than they are, at least about whatever it was we were disagreeing about.
6. In fact I am somewhat surprised nobody has thought of doing that.
7. Leastways it has never happened that I can recall.
8. That is worth thinking about though because there might be a reason why nobody has.
9. Maybe I should see what happens when someone else disagrees before taking the plunge myself.
10. Meanwhile I am all right the way I am.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | The brain does not allow you to rest easy |
Given the title of the topic, AEL pedantry is not just optional, it is essential.
That "brain" should be "mind".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I take your point but I am restricted for the moment to what I happened to post up on Medium. Since I am dealing with process I don't think making hard and fast distinctions between brain and mind is necessary at this juncture.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
This was the first of, what I intended at the time, to be a series of stories bringing to the Medium audience some techniques we had developed here. Although it is not expressly mentioned, you will see how relevant it is to the whole mind vs brain debate.
----------------
Old Hat Syndrome Aug 30, 2024
We love hearing new things. We add them to our stock of knowledge and give ourselves a pat on the back for still being on the ball, not like some people we know. We then pass these gobbets of information along to the people we do know with an air of casual omniscience.
Except
We do not like to hear new things that may require our brains to be rewired. If that happens there is no knowing where it will end. The amount of rubbish we carry around in our heads means it may never end, such is the network nature of our synapses. ‘If that’s true then that must be true which means etc etc.’ So
How to ensure we can learn new things but not new ‘things’
We have various methods, the most basic of which is to select the people we spend time with, including the media we come into daily contact with, on the basis that they share our own general set of assumptions. Hence none of them is likely to come out with anything that will call our own assumptions into question. Well, when was the last time it happened to you?
But it can happen.
We live in a free society made up of all sorts and, now and again, someone says something which sounds both true and disturbing. The first line of defence is the straightforward ad hominem one. ‘Who the hell is this person?’ It turns out he (it generally is) is a looney tune of some sort. Or worse, a Tory. Anyway, he’s not worth listening to and we return to our workaday world undisturbed.
But sometimes he isn’t.
Or at any rate we cannot immediately dismiss him. Our brain recognises this new something has the potentiality to require a re-wire job and, since the idea cannot be excluded as being obviously fruitcake, it will have to be processed. But the act of processing itself carries the potentiality of re-wiring. How do we know ahead of time what will get called into question?
What to do?
We have a variety of defences, which I will tell you about another time, but one of the best is ‘Old Hat Syndrome’. Somebody launches something at you. It’s new, it’s big, it’s dangerous. Your brain immediately — and I mean immediately — tells you it isn’t new at all, you’ve heard it all before. “That argument is so old hat, darling, it’s got wrinkles.” So old you can’t precisely say when you first heard it but, by God, you dealt with it at the time, or anyway somebody did, and you have no intention of going over the ground all over again.
You can try it out yourself here https://medium.com/p/57b3f43f9f05 and remember, you may well be right. But it won’t matter if you’re not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Seeing is not believing. You hope. Sep 1, 2024
Yesterday I was telling you about ‘old hat syndrome’. Today’s topic is ‘careful ignoral’.
When we are confronted with evidence that appears to demonstrate that A is true when we believe, au contraire, B is true, we have a decision to make. We could always ditch B and embrace A, but we may be very attached to B.
| B could be fundamental to who we are. |
It may be better to put A on hold while we explore other possibilities. Or, better still, let people who are paid to do these things explore the possibilities and let us know what they come up with in the fullness of time.
| “I’m quite prepared to ditch B if it proves to be wrong, I’m that kind of person. Only I’m not going to do it right now, just on your say-so.” |
It is often essential we carry on believing something even though there is evidence to the contrary. As it happens, our modern world is based on such an exercise in, as we call it, ‘careful ignoral’. This is what happened…
Science is quite beholden to Isaac Newton and his analysis of how the universe works. It certainly appeared to work the way he said when we observed it through our new-fangled telescopes. Apart from the planet Mercury.
| This had an orbit that almost but didn’t quite conform to Newtonian principles. |
Which was a nuisance because the whole point of this new ‘science’ everyone was talking about was there could be no exceptions. Things were either Universal Laws or they weren’t. Were we going to throw the Newtonian baby out with the Ptolemaic bathwater because of Mercury?
| No, we decided, it was ‘observational error’. |
The damn sun kept getting in the way, Mercury being so close to it. We would wait until better telescopes came along and that would clear up why Mercury wasn’t being Newtonian and everything else was. When better telescopes arrived, they didn’t clear it up. So we waited for even better telescopes.
A six year-old would have pointed out the least likely explanation was ‘observational error’ because telescopes had improved by orders of magnitude but the problem had remained exactly the same. Indeed we were able to examine the ‘perturbations of Mercury’ with greater and greater accuracy.
But small children are kept out of observatories — you wouldn’t want raspberry jam on the lenses — so we had to wait three hundred years until Einstein came up with the correct explanation
| It wasn’t Mercury behaving badly, the light from Mercury was being bent by the gravitational force of the Sun. |
[I should say the latest explanation, for reasons I will go into next time.] So tell the kid it was observational error after all. And give him a clip round the ear for being so cheeky while you’re about it. But don’t mention the three hundred year hiatus, it might cause him to question his faith in the way grownups run the world.
| Oh, you wanna know how ‘careful ignoral’ effects you? |
Not cosmologists or small children. Well, all right, but please remember it is better not to know you are carefully ignoring something if you have been carefully ignoring it all this time for some good reason, so on your own head be it. Here is an example I heard on the radio yesterday.
A BBC reporter was in Oakland, California and was describing what a dreadful condition it had got itself into. He was being very graphic, rather over-relishing his task I thought, though in truth it wasn’t that different from all the other rundown cities in America the BBC has been telling us about over the years.
After praising Oakland’s fine radical tradition (true enough, I was there when it peaked in the nineteen-sixties though not much contributing to it) and ‘the resilience of the people’ (translation: they can’t afford to leave and are making the best of it), our man on the spot sought out academic experts to explain the precipitate decline. One thing Oakland is not short of is academic experts. Though near rather than in Oakland.
It turned out to be the fault of either Jerry Brown, an ex-mayor of Oakland, or Ronald Reagan, an ex-governor of California. Both were named as Chief Culprit by our intrepid reporter’s sources and passed along to us without comment. ‘One left one, one right one, and both with a bit of shite on,’ in the best traditions of the BBC.
Now a child of six would tug the BBC man’s sleeve and enquire which of these two men had caused the precipitate decline of all the other rundown cities in America. But the BBC does not employ six year-olds because this would have led to a consideration of what the cities did have in common, which is presumably the cause of the decline and which is presumably being carefully ignored. And presumably for very good reasons.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
